The cost of coordination can exceed the benefit of collaboration in performing complex tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11038v3
• Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 19:04:22 GMT
• Title: The cost of coordination can exceed the benefit of collaboration in performing complex tasks
• Authors: Vince J. Straub and Milena Tsvetkova and Taha Yasseri
• Abstract summary: dyads gradually improve in performance but do not experience a collective benefit compared to individuals in most situations. Having an additional expert in the dyad who is adequately trained improves accuracy. Findings highlight that the extent of training received by an individual, the complexity of the task at hand, and the desired performance indicator are all critical factors that need to be accounted for when weighing up the benefits of collective decision-making.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Humans and other intelligent agents often rely on collective decision making based on an intuition that groups outperform individuals. However, at present, we lack a complete theoretical understanding of when groups perform better. Here we examine performance in collective decision-making in the context of a real-world citizen science task environment in which individuals with manipulated differences in task-relevant training collaborated. We find 1) dyads gradually improve in performance but do not experience a collective benefit compared to individuals in most situations; 2) the cost of coordination to efficiency and speed that results when switching to a dyadic context after training individually is consistently larger than the leverage of having a partner, even if they are expertly trained in that task; and 3) on the most complex tasks having an additional expert in the dyad who is adequately trained improves accuracy. These findings highlight that the extent of training received by an individual, the complexity of the task at hand, and the desired performance indicator are all critical factors that need to be accounted for when weighing up the benefits of collective decision-making.

Related papers

• Adaptive Control in Assistive Application -- A Study Evaluating Shared Control by Users with Limited Upper Limb Mobility [4.858212893290674]
  This study assesses an adaptive Degrees of Freedom control method specifically tailored for individuals with upper limb impairments. It employs a between-subjects analysis with 24 participants, conducting 81 trials across three distinct input devices in a realistic everyday-task setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T08:36:55Z)
• Optimising Human-AI Collaboration by Learning Convincing Explanations [62.81395661556852]
  We propose a method for a collaborative system that remains safe by having a human making decisions. Ardent enables efficient and effective decision-making by adapting to individual preferences for explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T16:00:16Z)
• Flexible social inference facilitates targeted social learning when rewards are not observable [58.762004496858836]
  Groups coordinate more effectively when individuals are able to learn from others' successes. We suggest that social inference capacities may help bridge this gap, allowing individuals to update their beliefs about others' underlying knowledge and success from observable trajectories of behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T21:04:03Z)
• Enhancing team performance with transfer-learning during real-world human-robot collaboration [0.0]
  Transfer learning was integrated in a deep Reinforcement Learning (dRL) agent. Probability reuse method was used for the transfer learning (TL) TL also affected the subjective performance of the teams and enhanced the perceived fluency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T16:02:00Z)
• Human Decision Makings on Curriculum Reinforcement Learning with Difficulty Adjustment [52.07473934146584]
  We guide the curriculum reinforcement learning results towards a preferred performance level that is neither too hard nor too easy via learning from the human decision process. Our system is highly parallelizable, making it possible for a human to train large-scale reinforcement learning applications. It shows reinforcement learning performance can successfully adjust in sync with the human desired difficulty level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-04T23:53:51Z)
• Human-Algorithm Collaboration: Achieving Complementarity and Avoiding Unfairness [92.26039686430204]
  We show that even in carefully-designed systems, complementary performance can be elusive. First, we provide a theoretical framework for modeling simple human-algorithm systems. Next, we use this model to prove conditions where complementarity is impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-17T18:44:41Z)
• Towards Collaborative Question Answering: A Preliminary Study [63.91687114660126]
  We propose CollabQA, a novel QA task in which several expert agents coordinated by a moderator work together to answer questions that cannot be answered with any single agent alone. We make a synthetic dataset of a large knowledge graph that can be distributed to experts. We show that the problem can be challenging without introducing prior to the collaboration structure, unless experts are perfect and uniform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-24T14:27:00Z)
• Improved cooperation by balancing exploration and exploitation in intertemporal social dilemma tasks [2.541277269153809]
  We propose a new learning strategy for achieving coordination by incorporating a learning rate that can balance exploration and exploitation. We show that agents that use the simple strategy improve a relatively collective return in a decision task called the intertemporal social dilemma. We also explore the effects of the diversity of learning rates on the population of reinforcement learning agents and show that agents trained in heterogeneous populations develop particularly coordinated policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T08:40:56Z)
• Efficiently Identifying Task Groupings for Multi-Task Learning [55.80489920205404]
  Multi-task learning can leverage information learned by one task to benefit the training of other tasks. We suggest an approach to select which tasks should train together in multi-task learning models. Our method determines task groupings in a single training run by co-training all tasks together and quantifying the effect to which one task's gradient would affect another task's loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-10T02:01:43Z)
• Human-Robot Team Coordination with Dynamic and Latent Human Task Proficiencies: Scheduling with Learning Curves [0.0]
  We introduce a novel resource coordination that enables robots to explore the relative strengths and learning abilities of their human teammates. We generate and evaluate a robust schedule while discovering the latest individual worker proficiency. Results indicate that scheduling strategies favoring exploration tend to be beneficial for human-robot collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-03T19:44:22Z)
• Wisdom of collaborators: a peer-review approach to performance appraisal [0.0]
  We propose a novel metric, the Peer Rank Score (PRS), that evaluates individual reputations and the non-quantifiable individual impact. PRS is based on pairwise comparisons of employees. We show high robustness of the algorithm on simulations and empirically validate it for a genetic testing company on more than one thousand employees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-30T09:23:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.